SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 178

2004(2) Supreme 138
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
V.N. Khare, CJI., S.B. Sinha & S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. -Appellant
versus
T.N. Electricity Board & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7615 of 2002
Decided on 12-2-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : T.L.V. Iyer, Sr. Advocate, Ramesh Babu M.R., Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 1-2 : A.T.M. Sampath, P.N. Ramalingam, V. Balaji, Ms. Aarthi Radhakrishnan, Advocates.
For the Respondent Nos. 3-4 : Ms. Revathy Raghavan, Advocate (NP).

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order 6 Rule 17-Suit for damages on plea that because of non-supply of electrical energy by respondent, appellant Co. could not run-Damages were claim for a period from March 1983 to October, 1992 and suit was filed in March 1993-Application to amend plaint filed in 1998 to enhance claim for damages-Single Judge allowed amendment-Order set aside in appeal-Appeal-Discretion exercised by High Court in rejecting application was in conformity with law. (Paras 2 and 3)

       

ORDER

The appellant herein is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and started its commercial production in the year 1982. It appears that subsequently it became sick. It is alleged that the appellant-Company could not run because of non supply of electrical energy by the respondents herein. It is under such circumstances, the appellant herein filed a suit for damages against respondents for the damage suffered during the period commencing from 28th March, 1983 to 16th October, 1992. The said suit was filed sometime in March, 1993 on the Original Side of the Madras High Court. In July, 1998, the appellant herein filed an interlocutory application for amendment of the plaint. By the said application for amendment, the appellant sought to enhance its claim for damages. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the amendment, as prayed for. The respondents herein went in appeal before the Letters Patent Bench before the High Court and the Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal. It is against the said order and judgment, the appellant is in appeal before us.

2. Shri T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, urged that the view taken by the High Court in rejecting the amendment of the appellant was erroneous. The law as regard permitting amendment to the plaint, is well settled. In L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Messrs. Jardine Skinner and Co., (AIR 1957 SC 357 = 1957 SCR 438), it was held that the Court as a rule decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. But that is a factor to be taken into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether amendment should be ordered and does not affect the power of the Court to order it.

3. It is not disputed that the appellate court has a co-extensive power of the trial court. We find that the discretion exercise by the High Court in rejecting the plaint was in conformity with law.

4. For the aforesaid reason, we do not find any merit in the appeal. It fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

**************

 

00025

00026

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top